Rapier108 said:

---

Quote:

---

A federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden on Thursday again ruled against the Trump administration's third-country deportation policy, months after the Supreme Court blocked his earlier decision and rebuked him in a rare follow-up order.

The Supreme Court not only stayed Boston-based Judge Brian Murphy's injunction over the same deportation policy in a 6-3 order last June, but the high court followed up with a second 7-2 order a week later admonishing the judge for flouting its decision. Murphy's latest ruling is also likely to land before the justices, setting up a fresh test of the judge's decisions in the high-stakes case.

Murphy, who was confirmed by the Senate along party lines, had issued a sweeping 81-page decision on Thursday finding that the Department of Homeland Security's process for deporting migrants to third countries (countries that are not specified in the migrants' removal orders) was unlawful because it violated the migrants' due process by not giving them enough time to raise fears that they could be tortured in the country they are sent to.

Murphy's decision came after the judge last year issued a preliminary injunction that also blocked DHS from deporting migrants to third countries under the department's current protocols. The Supreme Court's order in June halted that decision, but, pointing to a technicality, Murphy said that a separate subsequent ruling he made on May 21 specifically addressing six migrants bound for South Sudan was still "in full force and effect" despite the high court's stay.

The judge's move led the Department of Justice to ask the Supreme Court for clarification, and the high court responded by issuing its follow-up 7-2 opinion saying Murphy could not block DHS from deporting the six migrants.

"Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable," the Supreme Court's majority wrote.

In an unusual move, the majority also noted that if the government needed further help to stop Murphy's interference, it could seek a writ of mandamus, a rare legal tool used by a higher court to force a lower court judge to follow the law.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-appointed-judge-who-slapped-down-trump-deportation-policy-previously-rebuked-scotus

This judge has already been slapped down twice by the Supreme Court, but like every activist that Obama and Biden put on the federal bench, he simply doesn't care. He is just trying to gum up the works as much as possible.

When SCOTUS slaps him down yet again, he'll just issue another injunction knowing it will take months to get back to the high court once more.

---

Can the SCOTUS do anything to sanction him and get him removed?

Judges have rare power now given the gridlock in Congress which makes impeachment very unlikely. Unless the Supreme Court has the ability to discipline lower judges, this will continue. I'm guessing the Trump Administration is cautious about just outright ignoring rulings from these lower judges because they aren't ready/willing to cross that bridge.

Frustrating.

something that rhymes with far and teather

Yet republicans are still not confirming Trump's nominees for the bench. This problem is going to get much, much worse.

Quote:

---

Can the SCOTUS do anything to sanction him and get him removed?

---

Nope. Only way to remove him is via impeachment, and Congress won't do anything.

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Ignore the judge

---

This.

aggiehawg said:

---

There is an old joke about federal district judges being the least favorite before St. Peter because they tend to think of themselves as "God." And they regard their superior judges and justices as bumps in their road.

I quite practicing law when it became clear to me there were no more professionals in the profession, including judges.

Late 90s, I was done.

---

William Wayne says hello.

Quote:

---

and the high court responded by issuing its follow-up 7-2 opinion saying Murphy could not block DHS from deporting the six migrants.

---

Bet I can guess the 2!

The solution isn't to ignore the judge. The judge is ignoring another judge (or court) above him and ignoring judicial review and deference to higher courts. It mocks the whole system of judicial review.

The solution is to impeach him. Ignoring multiple rulings from the SCOTUS (and doing so openly and in defiance) should get SCOTUS to rebuke him in such a way that it forces Congress to do their job. Rule so clearly and pointedly that Congress has a responsibility to remove judges that fail to follow judicial codes that Congress would be shamed for not acting.

Impeachment had been thrown around so badly the last 7 years that it's become a joke. It should be the option of last resort. But it should be used and it should be so non partisanly obvious to everyone when used. The problem is that tool has been turned into a partisan joke.

SCOTUS has ruled. This judge is ignoring that ruling. Simple, ignore this judge.

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Ignore the judge

---

TrUmP iS a TyRANT

Mathguy64 said:

---

The solution isn't to ignore the judge. The judge is ignoring another judge (or court) above him and ignoring judicial review and deference to higher courts. It mocks the whole system of judicial review.

The solution is to impeach him. Ignoring multiple rulings from the SCOTUS (and doing so openly and in defiance) should get SCOTUS to rebuke him in such a way that it forces Congress to do their job. Rule so clearly and pointedly that Congress has a responsibility to remove judges that fail to follow judicial codes that Congress would be shamed for not acting.

Impeachment had been thrown around so badly the last 7 years that it's become a joke. It should be the option of last resort. But it should be used and it should be so non partisanly obvious to everyone when used. The problem is that tool has been turned into a partisan joke.

---

Impeachment at this point is no better than a censure. Senate will never vote to convict and thus remove him.

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Ignore the judge

---

TrUmP iS a TyRANT

---

So be it.

Teslag said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

The solution isn't to ignore the judge. The judge is ignoring another judge (or court) above him and ignoring judicial review and deference to higher courts. It mocks the whole system of judicial review.

The solution is to impeach him. Ignoring multiple rulings from the SCOTUS (and doing so openly and in defiance) should get SCOTUS to rebuke him in such a way that it forces Congress to do their job. Rule so clearly and pointedly that Congress has a responsibility to remove judges that fail to follow judicial codes that Congress would be shamed for not acting.

Impeachment had been thrown around so badly the last 7 years that it's become a joke. It should be the option of last resort. But it should be used and it should be so non partisanly obvious to everyone when used. The problem is that tool has been turned into a partisan joke.

---

Impeachment at this point is no better than a censure. Senate will never vote to convict and thus remove him.

---

I agree. The whole impeachment process is so politicized now and the makeup of the House and Senate is so openly in opposition with members of both parties so far from each other on the spectrum, that there is no chance any House would ever have more than a minimum majority from their party who should vote to impeach and there is no chance any Senate would ever get more than their minimum majority from their party to vote to convict.

Any Democratic controlled Senate would get their members. Any Republican controlled Senate would get theirs minus probably Collins and Murkowski, just because those 2 are more interested in what they can or can't get for a party vote than for what is the right thing to do.

The most important function Congress has, to remove someone from a position because they are so bad at it that it creates chaos and harms the nation, has become a political joke.

I'm not sure we will ever see a real impeachment and conviction ever again. Unless of course the Ds regain the House and the Senate miraculously get a supermajority. Then Trump gets impeached and convicted in a day.

And the feckless Republicans won't impeach the judge.

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Ignore the judge

---

Yep. Let him enforce it.

How does this decisoin have any power when the USSC already ruled on this exact situtation (assuming it is exact)?

Why was this lawsuit even allowed to be filed if the USSC already made a judgement on this topic?

What are the differences in this lawsuit from what the one the USSC already heard?

It's been thrown around badly by democrats. Republicans wouldn't even impeach Mayorkas or Biden and remove them from office.

CDUB98 said:

---

And the feckless Republicans won't impeach the judge.

---

Again, what would be the point?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It's been thrown around badly by democrats. Republicans wouldn't even impeach Mayorkas or Biden and remove them from office.

---

Another again, how would republicans remove them from office?

BTKAG97 said:

---

How does this decisoin have any power when the USSC already ruled on this exact situtation (assuming it is exact)?

Why was this lawsuit even allowed to be filed if the USSC already made a judgement on this topic?

What are the differences in this lawsuit from what the one the USSC already heard?

---

Knowing lawyers, a comma placed in there somewhere.

BTKAG97 said:

---

How many times does a tyrannical judge have to FA before he/she gets impeached?

The US House needs to get off their asses and throw this trash out.

---

Hold on. You think the Dems and their Soviet-style block voting, as well as the GOPe are gonna impeach a judge that rules on their side?

That's not expecting someone to get off their ass--that's expecting a miracle.

The problem is that many on the right (just like the left) are clueless when it comes to basic constitutional knowledge like the impeachment process.

Impeachment is step 1, only requires 50%+1 in the house. Basically a grand jury to bring charges against the judge.

Step 2 is conviction and removal in the senate. This requires 66% in the senate by the constitution. Which means you'd need 13 democrat senators to remove a sitting judge. That isn't happening. Impeachment is a pipe dream and is only suggested by those possessing a large amount of constitutional ignorance.

Teslag said:

---

The problem is that many on the right (just like the left) are clueless when it comes to basic constitutional knowledge like the impeachment process.

---

I am very aware of the process. My point is that not even all republicans will do the right thing. You have to use the levers of power that you have, and they won't even do that.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

The problem is that many on the right (just like the left) are clueless when it comes to basic constitutional knowledge like the impeachment process.

---

I am very aware of the process. My point is that not even all republicans will do the right thing. You have to use the levers of power that you have, and they won't even do that.

---

Is it a lever of power if it's completely powerless?